Faculty Council discusses academic integrity policies

The policies are not consistent throughout the university.

By Mary Novokhovsky

Published March 19, 2010

Thursday's Faculty Council meeting focused on the issue of academic integrity.

Intercampus Faculty Council member Wilson Watt brought forward a revised statement of the academic integrity policy for discussion.

"The old language of the policy statement allowed professors to flunk a student who cheated on a test that represented 5 percent of their grade," Watt said. "That kind of punishment would be arbitrary."

Watt said there is a need for consistency among academic integrity policies within specific colleges and the university as a whole.

"Statements should be consistent among all professors in a certain field," Watt said. "Every student should get the same message."

Watt said the rewrite of the academic integrity statement is meant to protect students from professors taking arbitrary action in regard to cheating. He said professors are allowed to give students a zero on an assignment they find to be completed in a dishonest manner, yet they cannot be punitive and fail the student in the course.

Faculty Council Chairwoman Leona Rubin said though the rewrite of the policy focused on protecting the student, it was important for professors to continue reporting academic dishonesty.

Electrical and computer engineering professor Harry Tyrer said the action of reporting student cheating is not a simple task because it requires an investment of time and energy on the part of the professor.

"If you want to bring something before the provost, you have to make a case for it," Tyrer said.

Agronomy professor Bill Wiebold said he agreed the academic integrity policy should protect the student. He said the policy wasn't meant to allow students to get away with cheating, but it was there to establish consistency among the departments.

"You can flunk a student, but you got to be ready to go to court," Wiebold said. "You may win, you may lose, but be ready to justify your action. We need to protect students from capricious acts."

The discussion surrounding the changes to the academic integrity policy ended in a general consensus that the new version of the policy was problematic in its language; there was no clear interpretation in regard to policy consistency.

Wilson said all four UM system campuses would revisit the document at the next Intercampus Faculty Council meeting in order to address the issue.

Other topics discussed during the Faculty Council meeting included degree revocation policy, the development of a diversity-training module for faculty and the rights behind intellectual property.

"There is no policy on our campus where a degree can be revoked after it has been given," Rubin said. "This will be an IFC issue."

Rubin said, in response to the recent crime at the Gaines/Oldham Black Culture Center, UM system Human Resources was in the process of creating a diversity-training program for faculty and staff.

"I am working with HR about the development of a diversity training module that can be used online by faculty and staff," Rubin said. "It's similar to a sexual harassment training we had in the past."

On the topic of intellectual property, Rubin said for the most part students own the rights to their intellectual property, but discrepancies arise when someone is under the employment of the university.

Rubin said the general faculty meeting in April will discuss the idea of intellectual property in greater depth.